Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Heritage Foundation sounds off on NSBA

I'd never heard of the National Schools Boards Association (NSBA) before about February 2019. That was soon after Teresa Holmes took office in November, and she was treated to an all-expense trip to Washington, DC for an annual meeting of the NSBA (thank you very much, Richland 2) . From her photos on Facebook, it sure looked like she was enjoying herself. Of course, that was before she blocked me on Facebook.

For several years I've been a member of The Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C..

Read this Heritage Foundation article about the NSBA. What is the NSBA, and Why Is It Trying To Shut Down Parents?

Watch the video embedded in the article titled The Truth about Critical Race Theory.

The article says that the NSBA has "a liberal political agenda nearly indistinguishable from teachers unions."

Local school boards and local school board members are not members of the NSBA. They are members of the state school boards associations; e.g., the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA). The SCSBA gets money from Richland 2. And SCSBA tells Richland 2 how to do certain things.

Apparently, it approved (or at least condoned) the use of personal email addresses by board members a few years ago. I was told that the reason was to allow the smallest, poorest school boards in the state to have email communications, when they were too small or too broke to afford their own email server.

And two people on the board here think that the SCSBA says it's okay for them to use gmail accounts. Well, if Federal and State FOIA laws count for anything, it's not okay.

Richland 2 is big enough to be telling the SCSBA, not the other way around.

SCSBA Opinion of NSBA Letter

Here's a letter sent by the Executive Director Scott Price of the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA) to school board members and superintendents. These board members are the people who are the dues-paying members (well, not their own money, of course) of SCSBA, and they should be telling Scott Price what to do and say. Are they?

Yesterday he wrote:

National School Boards Association (NSBA) Interim Executive Director Chip Slaven and NSBA President Viola Garcia sent a letter on September 29, 2021, to President Joe Biden asking for “federal assistance to stop threats and acts of violence against public school children, public school board members, and other public school district officials and educators.” SCSBA was not aware of the letter prior to it being sent.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland responded October 4, 2021, that he was directing the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to begin meeting with state and local law enforcement leaders over the next month to address threats against school board members, school and district leaders, teachers, and other school personnel. 

NSBA’s letter and the response from DOJ have been covered by national media and on social media platforms.

Since then, a significant number of state school boards associations – including neighboring Southern Region states – are reporting that the letter and the DOJ response have generated harsh negative reactions directed at them, as well as some local school boards from groups and political leaders in their states. In response, NSBA issued the attached 3-page Q&A to state associations.

As SCSBA executive director, I am very concerned about NSBA’s letter insomuch as it calls for federal intervention and I have directed these concerns to NSBA’s leadership.

SCSBA believes that most school board members in South Carolina would prefer to handle such matters – as you have been doing – through local law enforcement. As you are aware, most school board meetings in our state have a very visible law enforcement presence, whether it’s city police, deputies or school resource officers. And, yes, some of you have had to increase that presence such as having officers outside the district office before, during and after meetings. Similarly, we believe that most school board members would be most content with turning over any such matters warranting investigation to local or state law enforcement.

In South Carolina, school boards welcome and desire public input. There is no law in our state requiring it, yet every board reserves time for public comment, even when those comments from constituents, parents and even students is emotional or angry.

If incidents occur that warrant a federal investigation or otherwise federal presence, then it should be handled appropriately. Otherwise, we believe that our members would prefer to handle such matters locally.

If you receive questions regarding the letter, you are welcome to direct them to SCSBA. As a reminder, local school district boards of trustees are not members of the National School Boards Association. The South Carolina School Boards Association and other state school boards associations are the members of NSBA; however, NSBA has a separate governance structure from SCSBA and state associations. Through SCSBA’s membership, member school boards have access to national resources and training services. These include timely federal legal and legislative advocacy, reports and updates and more.

Please know that we are closely monitoring the impact of NSBA’s actions in South Carolina. If you would like to discuss this further, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me.

We know that you are leading in challenging times and SCSBA is here to support you. 

Scott didn't mention anything about pulling out of NSBA, which some other state school boards associations have done.

Maybe Scott Price ought to run over here to a Richland 2 School Board meeting some Tuesday night and experience the "welcome" that the public gets. Maybe he'll stick around to the end of the meeting and walk out to the parking lot with Cheryl Caution-Parker.

Holmes & McKie - on the board illegally. Here's why...

Since February 2019 I have complained to the Richland 2 School Board that there are two women on the board illegally.

Do you agree?

Disclosure of Economic Interests
SECTION 8-13-1110. Persons required to file statement of economic interests.
(A) No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office. 

11/6/2018 Holmes and McKie were elected to the school board.
11/13/2018 Holmes and McKie were sworn in and attended that night's board meeting.
11/14/2018? Richland 2 submitted notarized oath of office documents to the S.C. Secretary of State.
12/4/2018 Holmes and McKie filed their Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) with the Ethics Commission.
Upon information and belief, Holmes and McKie have not taken the oath of office since 12/4/2018.

Did they take the oath of office before they filed their SEIs?

There; that wasn't so hard, was it?

Commissions, Oaths, and Bonds
SECTION 8-3-10. Oath and commission prerequisite to assumption of duties.
It shall be unlawful for any person to assume the duties of any public office until he has taken the oath provided by the Constitution and been regularly commissioned by the Governor.

Holmes and McKie are illegally in office, because they have never taken the oath of office legally.

They were "qualified" to take it, because they were elected.

But they were not "eligible" to take the oath on Nov. 13, 2018, because they had not filed their SEIs.

They became "eligible" to take the oath on Dec. 4, 2018, after they filed their SEIs.

But they have never taken the oath on or since Dec. 4, 2018.

Thus, they are usurping public office and should be removed. Immediately.

Convince me I'm wrong...